| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | nikolay(at)samokhvalov(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Fwd: pg_dump VS alter database ... set search_path ... |
| Date: | 2006-10-09 14:36:26 |
| Message-ID: | 1822.1160404586@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
"Nikolay Samokhvalov" <samokhvalov(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> What is the reason to not include database settings (like search_path)
> to database dump created with "pg_dump -C"?
Duplication of code and functionality with pg_dumpall. I'd want to see
some thought about how to resolve that, not just a quick copy-some-code-
from-pg_dumpall-into-pg_dump. You also need to explain why this issue
should be treated differently from users and groups ... a dump won't
restore correctly without that supporting context either.
I have no objection to rethinking the division of labor between the two
programs, but let's end up with something that's cleaner not uglier.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Lenorovitz, Joel | 2006-10-09 17:59:05 | Determining caller of a function (due to a cascaded FK constraint?) |
| Previous Message | Merlin Moncure | 2006-10-09 14:32:58 | Re: PL/SQL: function call like $1($2) |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Magnus Hagander | 2006-10-09 14:38:45 | Re: Backbranch releases and Win32 locking |
| Previous Message | Csaba Nagy | 2006-10-09 14:29:44 | Re: pg_dump exclusion switches and functions/types |